The point I was making is pretty clear, and that is: marriage by definition is ONE MAN + ONE WOMAN. Arguing that the definition of marriage also includes ONE MAN + ONE MAN is as absurd as saying that marriage also includes ONE DOG + ONE DOG. In both contexts, you are fundamentally changing the definition of the institution, which defeats the purpose for the institution in the first instance. So why not start recognizing marriages between flowers, rats, dogs and other living things?
The liberal idiocy about "consenting, human adults" is a red herring. Granted it would be fascistic to argue that consenting human adults couldn't engage in any relationship or association they wish; conservatives do not argue this. It is not fascistic, however, to argue that the entire definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because liberals decide to introduce the absurdity of homosexual marriage as a constitutional right.
To argue that believing that marriage between an man and a man is fundamentally flawed is fascistic, is as idiotic as arguing that believing a flat-screen TV should be used as a mattress is fascistic. Gays are free to be gay, and they are free to engage in the most disgusting homosexual relations to their full pleasure. I think it is indescribably immoral, but I think passing laws banning sodomy is a waste of governmental resources and would be very hard to enforce, but to argue that marriage ought to be destroyed in order to include gays is manifestly preposterously, and is the kind of absurdity that can only be promulgated by liberals.